I think this is similar to the WIX integration, but via a tweet I happened upon, the project sharing/management platform Kona has announced it now has Google Drive integration

I realize that Getty/iStock are arguing that this isn't really a new platform as it's just accessing work on Google Drive, but as things move around in these platforms - to other users or displayed on the web - what originated in a Google Drive doc is going to end up many other places.

And the paragraph starts out "file sharing just got better"... another way of furthering the six degrees of separation.  Supposedly the Google Drive document creator is agreeing to some unknown terms when they create the document but what terms are regulating anyone that document is shared with?

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on January 23, 2013, 11:03

So what?  let them give em away free, Google, IS, Getty, anybody else?  who cares?  My RMs are still intact. Cant be touched.

tisk, tisk, tisk. What a shame, so sad.

I thought the April 2011 changes to the Getty contract allowed them to move RM content to RF over the photographer's objections (if it hadn't sold for a certain period). Getty contributors had no opt out from RF content moving to Thinkstock either as I recall. See here and here.

Seems to me that as the Getty artist-trampling machine rolls on, sooner or later everyone's work gets caught in some crappy deal that leaves them with the lovely choice of either accepting the terms they don't like or leaving Getty.

If this (below) is how Getty takes care of RM I wouldn't fee all that confident about just how safe those images are.  $2.08 for extensive, untracked use is right there in the same camp as $12 for untracked use under the special premium access time limited license.  Seems like they don't care who they trample on.

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP Files Class Action Against Getty Images on Behalf of Professional Photographers Kreindler & Kreindler LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Getty Images in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of dozens of professional photographers whose images were incorporated without their permission into Getty's new product "Premium Access."

According to Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, Premium Access is not a rights managed product. "Getty has shirked its responsibility as a picture archive to track the use of plaintiffs' images, and to set pricing per use in good faith on a commercially reasonable basis." As a result, photographers have lost the ability to track the uses being made of their images.

Among the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit are some of the world's leading photographers. Their photographs have been licensed by Getty to major media clients for as little as $2.08 for extensive, untracked use. According to Nelson "Getty's prices have severely undercut the market for comparable photographs, damaged the future market for these photographs, and violated both the Rights Managed Image Distribution agreements Getty signed and the Uniform Commercial Code."

http://www.kreindler.com/Recent-Developments/Kreindler-Kreindler-LLP-Files-Class-Action-Against-Getty-Images-on-Behalf-of-Professional-Photographers.shtml

One problem I've noticed with the CV keywording is that you need the correct phrase to match the CV but also the indivdual words but sometimes those individual words result in what could be viewed as keyword spamming.  Consider an image of a Shrimp Cocktail.  Keywords "shrimp cocktail", "shrimp" and "cocktail."  It obviously would appear in searches with the phrase.  If they buyer searches on just "shrimp" then decides they want to narrow the search by adding "cocktail" it will not recognize the phrase, only the individual words so you need the individual words included.  But if you search on "cocktail" the shrimp cocktail image appears as a search result which I think many would consider inappropriate and perhaps keyword spamming.

It's also a challenge when new terms are added to the CV, changing the search results for you image. 

We have a lawyer on the scene!? Ref:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&messageid=6824549

I`m a lawyer. Let`s get to basics.

Getty and contributors never signed a contract that allows buyer to resell!

We never signed (agreed) to permit reusage and resale.

Point.

Legal action:

Joint letter to google and public media and news that the agency will be sued for damage to contributors with abrief explanation that the basic problem is not that file has been legaly sold ONCE to google but that it was available for further use despite a contract with contributor that states otherwise.


Second step: Lawsuit.

It looks to me that there is a very powerful intention that something new on the market wants microstok to derive into something else, or that a new buyer actually is destroying the whole market as we know it now.....the question is why and who....

I'm glad someone here was able to capture that because the deleted it within about 30 minutes.  I'd noticed it and had to step away from my computer; when I came back it was gone.

When they initially started accepting images with people I think it was by invitation only.  I don't know if they lifted that restriction or if it is still a select group that can upload model-released images.

Quote from: Zerkalo on January 13, 2013, 12:00

With all respect I do not think that anything will change in IS unless some solid action on black diamond level happens. I am meaning people like Sean Locke, Don Bayley, Andresr, LisaFX, DKY59, mammamaart, etc. Furthermore, heavy uploaders from Denmark (not necessarily Arcurs) who contribute almost only lifestyle and business are another important group. So, let's say, if these people decide to negotiate together with another agency/agencies and pull their portfolios from IS things can change.

I was thinking something similar.  If a group of diamond and black diamond contributors, even just the non-exclusive ones, made a plan to pull out all together I would participate.  Perhaps we could agree in advance to begin deactivating images en mass on a certain day.

I think the usual arguments of "big sellers have the most to lose by pulling out" don't apply here.  If enough of us do it then we have the most to gain by protecting our livelihoods.

Seems to me that Yuri would be in a prime position to lead such a thing.  He's got his site up and running and if he was ever thinking about expanding it to others the time is ripe.   I imagine it would make some news in the industry if he were to grab the top dozen IS photographers and migrate them to his site.  He's got the staffing and PR in place to promote it and gain a lot of attention. 

Very exciting to be part of that.  I'll do my best to remember to tune in.  Be sure to remind us when the day comes!  And it's nice to see a postive and uplifting post about stock these days too. 

123RF is having again a BUG in reporting the sales, my balance just dropped and there were no refunds, how can we trust an agency this way?

Yesterday I had a refund and they had inconsistent totals on the monthly and daily pages and the downloads page.  The did correct it in less than 24 hours but now I see that my balance has dropped too.  In looking at the daily download page it seems that they have dropped me back to level one commissions when I should be at level two.

Following again in the IS tradition - institute the RC system, drop commissions, then post wrong commissions for sales repeatedly.  Not much incentive to upload right now.

oh Alex, thanks for popping in but seriously? you needed us to notice it?   what are y'all doing over there?

....hopefully working on some super awesome new feature that generates good sales

Wasn't that promised some time ago, when they introduced their version of Captcha?  I thought at the time that was introduced they said it was just a short term thing while the reconfigured a number of things on the site that would bring new features.

Royalty cuts are never good and never seemed to be justified with any increased earnings that I've witnessed.  This one seems particularly hurtful. I consider myself to be a serious part timer. I've invested in studio equipment with the intent of making this a long time endeavor with a goal of becoming full time.  My portfolio has grown slow but steady but has yet to grow to the level shown by long term full timers.  For the past few years my images were deemed worthy of 50% but come January I'll drop to 35% primarily because my portfolio is small.  It's a slap in the face to have 123 change the terms so drastically and devalue my efforts like this. They want me to invest time and effort in them to grow while they pull the means out from under me.  It disappoints me too because they were consistently my #3 earning site but they will be descending to a much lower level come January.  I'll be taking a wait and see attitude next year. Getting back to my current level appears to be years away unless they show a lot more than doubling sales even if I quadruple my portfolio.

We'll see if that triggers a response, but I'm not optimistic. I'm still waiting for a reply to my May 4 2012 ticket asking if my forum ban is permanent - but at least that still shows as an open ticket...

Now there's one way Rebecca could improve communication on the forums - lift the ban on you and many others that have been booted.

What e-mail address did you write to?  I believe that contributors need to send inquires to [email protected]
I think [email protected] is for buyers only so contributor inquires are ignored.